o_19ko2dt161ng2j4e1tgnoqv1s45a.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

C. LUSTY, W.A.N.AMARAL, W. D.HAWTHORNE, L.T. HONG & S. OLDFIELD (2007) networks could provide the channels for introducing and discussing the Red List categories and carrying out joint assessments. The IUCN/SSC Global Tree Specialist Group (GTSG) was established in 2003 with two specific aims. The first is to act in an advisory capacity to the action-based Global Trees Campaign which is run by UNEP/World Conservation Monitoring Centre and Fauna and Flora International and aims to conserve the world’s most threatened plant species. The second is to promote and implement Red Listing for trees. The GTSG takes a pragmatic approach to red listing, attempting to use all available information to evaluate species in priority regions and taxonomic groups. The intention is to provide evaluations which can be used as part of conservation planning for tree species where possible using evaluation workshops as a means to determine conservation priorities. In its first year of operation (2004) the GTSG contributed to the evaluation of over 1200 tree species using various approaches including desk studies, correspondence with experts, workshops and liaison with other IUCN/SSC plant specialist groups. The GTSG also evaluated several major commercial timber species and in doing so sought input from a wide range of stakeholders in an attempt to develop a robust evaluation model. CONCLUSIONS Despite its quantitative framework, the IUCN Red List categorisation inevitably demands varying degrees of subjective judgement. It is a well-matured system, in the sense that the rules have evolved through more than a decade of use and feedback, but is somewhat complicated and time-consuming to absorb and use. The risk that such a system presents is that while a few relatively well-known groups may be intensively assessed by well-versed assessors the vast majority of threatened species remain either unevaluated or their assessment is unrecognised. A small percentage (3%) of described plant species has been assessed using versions 3.0 or 3.1 Red List categories. Whereas, an exercise to approximate for missing data carried out by Pitman & Jørgensen (2002), using proxies of endemic species and threatened species for different combinations of countries, hotspots, tropical and temperate zones, suggest that somewhere between 22% and 47% of described plant species are likely to be threatened. It is widely recognised that global-level biodiversity monitoring needs to address a far broader range of species and means should be sought to increase the involvement of a wider group of stakeholders, the use of local calibration, ground-truthing and locally collected data (Balmford et al. 2005). The feasibility, therefore, of assessing plants using the IUCN Red List system may be brought into question. However, the knowledge that resource managers and policy makers are obliged to make daily decisions about genetic resources and that species-level information and indicators are increasingly sought in international and national policy-making should encourage us to maximise on the strong points of the Red List system and on all information and expertise available to accelerate the application of the Red List categories. We are advocating that this process might be better facilitated through the use of rules of thumb and coordinated through joint initiatives between taxonomists, conservationists and resource managers typified by the Workshop on threat assessment of plant species in Malaysia. In addition, some of the raw data used to categorise the species (e.g. degree square distribution data; estimates of population size) could also be used to frame local systems (focused initially through the Red List priorities 267
APPLYING THE IUCN RED LIST CATEGORIES IN A FOREST SETTING themselves), and can be checked and updated periodically as a means of monitoring conservation status and Red List categorization. While there is a place for more informed Red List assessments, involving experts and resource managers on the ground, the application of the Red List categories in conservation prioritization processes is less clear and not seriously explored here. This is an area that should be more formally reviewed and studied. REFERENCES AKÇAKAYA, H.R., FERSON, S., BURGMAN, M., KEITH, D.A., MACE, G.M. & TODD, C.R. 2000. Making consistent IUCN classifications under uncertainty. Conservation Biology 14: 1001–1013. AMARAL, W.A.N., KJAER, E., YANCHUK, A & GRAUDAL, L. 2004. Research needs. Pp. 37–48 in FAO, FLD, IPGRI. Forest Genetic Resources Conservation and Management. Vol. 1: Overview, concepts and some systematic approaches. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy. BAILLIE, J.E.M., HILTON-TAYLOR, C., STUART, S.N. (eds.). 2004. 2004 IUCN Red List of threatened species. A global species assessment. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 191 pp. BALMFORD, A., CRANE, P., DOBSON, A., GREEN, R.E., & MACE, G.E. 2005. The 2010 challenge: data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360: 221–228. CHEN, H.K. 2004. A Malaysian assessment of the World List of Threatened Trees. Traffic, Southeast Asia, Selangor, Malaysia. 48 pp. CHUA, L.S.L., HAWTHORNE, W.D., SAW, L.G.& QUAH, E.S. 1998. Biodiversity database and assessment of logging impacts. Pp. 30–41 in Lee, S.S., Dan, Y.M., Gauld, I.D. & J.Bishop (eds.) Conservation, management and development of forest resources. Proceedings of the Malaysia-United Kingdom Programme Workshop, 21-24 October, 1996, Kuala Lumpur. Forest Research Institute, Malaysia. GORDON, J.E., HAWTHORNE, W. D., REYES-GARCY´, A., SANDOVAL, G., & BARRANCE, A.J. 2004. Assessing landscapes: a case study of tree and shrub diversity in the seasonally dry tropical forests of Oaxaca, Mexico and southern Honduras. Biological Conservation 117: 429–442. GRAUDAL, L., YANCHUK, A. & KJAER, E. 2004. National planning. Pp. 25–36 in FAO, FLD, IPGRI. Forest Genetic Resources Conservation and Management. Vol. 1: Overview, concepts and some systematic approaches. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy. HAWTHORNE, W.D. & ABU-JUAM, M. 1995. Forest protection in Ghana. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 203 pp. HAWTHORNE, W.D. 1995. Categories of conservation priority and Ghanaian tree species - A comparison of IUCN red book categories and Ghanaian ‘Star’ values. Unpublished report commissioned by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. HAWTHORNE, W.D. 1996. Holes and the sums of parts in Ghanaian forest: Regeneration, scale and sustainable use. In: Swaine, M.D., Alexander, I.J., & Watling, R. (eds.). Studies in Guinea-Congo rain forest. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Edinburgh 104(b): 75– 176. 268
Page 1:
Status of Biological Diversity in M
Page 10 and 11:
G.W.H. DAVISON & ZUBAID AKBAR (2007
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34:
Page 38 and 39:
INDRANEIL DAS & NORSHAM YAAKOB (200
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88:
Page 91 and 92:
STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ON FRESHWATER FI
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 101 and 102:
1. Cucurlionidae. Photo courtesy Sh
Page 103 and 104:
MALAYSIAN FRESHWATER CRABS: CONSERV
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Species Status No. of Extent of Ran
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
OVERVIEW OF INSECT BIODIVERSITY RES
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
RESEARCH ON THE DIVERSITY OF MOTHS
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
AN OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON BEETLE D
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
THE STATUS OF RESEARCH ON HYMENOPTE
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173:
Page 176 and 177:
LEE SU SEE & ROY WATLING (2007) STA
Page 178 and 179:
LEE SU SEE & ROY WATLING (2007) wor
Page 180 and 181:
LEE SU SEE & ROY WATLING (2007) Som
Page 182 and 183:
LEE SU SEE & ROY WATLING (2007) mac
Page 184 and 185:
LEE SU SEE & ROY WATLING (2007) HAW
Page 186:
LEE SU SEE & ROY WATLING (2007) WAT
Page 191 and 192:
SEAWEED DIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA 1. Ha
Page 193 and 194:
SEAWEED DIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA seawe
Page 195 and 196:
Table 1. Checklist of Malaysian Mar
Page 197 and 198:
Family Siphonocladaceae Boergesenia
Page 199 and 200:
Caulerpa peltata Lamouroux [Syn: Ca
Page 201 and 202:
Family Liagoraceae Liagora ceranoid
Page 203 and 204:
Order Hildenbrandiales Family Hilde
Page 205 and 206:
Family Lomentariaceae Lomentaria gr
Page 207 and 208:
Laurencia caduciramulosa Masuda et
Page 209 and 210:
Dictyota hauckiana Nizamuddin [Syn:
Page 211 and 212:
Sargassum swartzii C. Agardh W C Sa
Page 213 and 214:
SEAWEED DIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA can b
Page 215 and 216:
SEAWEED DIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA assis
Page 217 and 218:
SEAWEED DIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA RAMAC
Page 219 and 220:
TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA the t
Page 221 and 222:
TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA part
Page 223 and 224: TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA Penin
Page 225 and 226: TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA On th
Page 227 and 228: TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA immed
Page 229 and 230: TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA For t
Page 231 and 232: TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA BURGE
Page 233 and 234: TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA NG, F
Page 236 and 237: NAZIR KHAN NIZAM KHAN & MOHD YUNUS
Page 248: NAZIR KHAN NIZAM KHAN & MOHD YUNUS
Page 252 and 253: J. GREGSON, R. DE KOK, J. MOAT & S.
Page 264 and 265: C. LUSTY, W.A.N.AMARAL, W. D.HAWTHO
Page 276: C. LUSTY, W.A.N.AMARAL, W. D.HAWTHO
Page 279 and 280: CONSERVATION STRATEGIES OF SHOREA L
Page 297: CONSERVATION STRATEGIES OF SHOREA L
show all

o_19ko2dt161ng2j4e1tgnoqv1s45a.pdf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?